VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT REGULAR BOARD MEETING
VIRGIN VALLEY WATER DISTRICT OFFICE
OCTOBER 19, 2010

Minutes of a Regular Board Meeting of the Virgin Valley Water District Board held on October 19, 2010, at the Virgin Valley Water District Office at 5:00 p.m. Attending were President John Paul, Vice-President Karl Gustaveson, and Board Members Ted Miller and Mark McEwen. Secretary-Treasurer Kenyon Leavitt was not present. Also present were Ken Rock District General Manager, Bo Bingham District Legal Counsel and Mary Johnson taking minutes and other interested parties of agenda items.

President John Paul called the meeting to order at 5:06 p.m.

Karl Gustaveson offered a Prayer and Mark McEwen led the pledge.

Public Comment – There was no public comment at this time.

Discussion: Board Comments - None
President of Board Comments - None

CONSENT AGENDA:

Karl Gustaveson made a motion to approve the consent agenda items 1-4 as listed below. Ted Miller seconded this motion and it was unanimously carried. 4-0

1. Discussion & Action - Approve Agenda

2. Discussion & Action – Approve Minutes from 9-29-10 Work Session Meeting

3. Discussion & Action – Approve Minutes from 10-5-10 Regular Board Meeting

4. Discussion & Action – Approve Bills Paid - $63,055.03

** End of Consent Agenda**

5. Discussion & Possible Action – Consideration to approve request by Advanced Construction with transferring impact and connection fees from Calais lots 1083 Falcon Nest and 1035 Raptor Circle to 1199 and 1190 Cold Creek Bend

Trent Graves representing Advanced Construction began by thanking Bo for taking a few minutes before the meeting to explain the situation and understands that the Board will not be able to take action at this meeting. Trent feels that just stating that it is in the policy should not be a response and suggested that they could meet certain conditions and that the Board was able to change policy. Trent further stated that he has paid a $4 a month fee for several years. Trent also stated that impact and connection fees must be paid before the City will issue a building permit. Mary corrected Trent’s statement in that the owner/developer must pay the impact fees only before a building permit is issued, because of an Interlocal agreement between the City and the VVWD, but that the connection fees did not need to be paid until they were ready for a meter to be installed and that is when the monthly charge comes in.
There continued to be a discussion regarding the District’s policy as it reads now and the responsibility of the developer, contractor and owners.

Bo stated that one of his concerns was that once the water meter has been installed it is then considered a permanent fixture and attached as an improvement to the property. Bo further stated that his primary concern in this situation is not with the property owner or contractor, but with a lender that may have loaned money for this particular parcel; and even beyond that, are there other contractors or subcontractors out there that may have asserted lien rights against this property. If they have, and a meter is attached with the property, there is some legal responsibility there. Bo further mentioned that there may be other issues in regards to mapping and Nevada Division of Water Resources, but feels that if these issues could be adequately addressed, it could create a more open environment for the builders out there so that they could do what they need to do; and the board could consider something like that. Bo also stated that Karl was correct and that there are third party issues out there that the Board must also be concerned about.

Ken questioned if it was possible if we had a procedure where they could pay an amount for the meter and for reinstallation at another location and they would not have the $4 a month fee; but when that location required service, it would be somewhere in the records that the meter has already been paid for at that location, but it just isn’t there and installed.

There continued to be discussion regarding liabilities and responsibilities and issues that could arise or be satisfied.

Ted Miller made a motion to table this item until November 16, 2010 and have legal counsel revisit this item and the Board would consider action at that time. Mark McEwen seconded this motion and it was unanimously carried. 4-0

6. Discussion & Possible Action – Consideration to approve a type, size and quantity of piping for future use under the new Exit 120 interchange

Ken began by summarizing a few comments and stated that Mike Chandler would provide additional information. Ken stated that at a conference seminar he attended it was about RCP (rapid crack propagation). PVC pipe tends to RCP, which is when under pressure, a crack will move laterally down the pipe at a rate of 600’/second. Ken further stated that we have seen this happen within our system. There are three ways to put PVC pipe together: 1) bell and spigot, which is usually how we put it together; 2) glued joints; and 3) butt fusion welding, where they have a special machine that takes two ends of the pipe and fuses them together. A fusion weld will not stop a RCP.

Another pipe, HDPE (high density polyethylene), is five times stronger than PVC, twice as much pressure resistance and almost impossible to get a RCP down it. Ken believes the HDPE pipe is much better than PVC and not much more expensive. It does require a special piece of equipment to fuse it together. Ken turned it over to Mike Chandler.

Mike explained to the board and public that at the intersection south of Wal-Mart the District had a three-way branch and that the current loop coming across is a 16” pipe. This pipe does not currently follow the underpass route. One route passes under Pulsipher Wash where Pulsipher Wash passes under the freeway and the two other crossings are coordinated with drainage channels. These would cause concern with the history of flash flooding in this area. Mike informed the Board that he had spoken with NDOT, both the project manager and the financial director up in Carson City. This project is being funded by federally earmarked dollars so NDOT does not have a lot of control on matching money or helping us out financially with the project. Mike asked NDOT if we would be required to meet any NDOT requirements for casing the pipe for protection as we usually see in a major freeway crossing; but where the underpass is considered a City of Mesquite extension under Falcon Ridge Parkway, this would fall under the City’s standards. Therefore, casing would probably not be required, unless required by the City.

Mike further stated that with the preliminary layout provided by NDOT, it seems that with four lanes it would not be difficult to repair the line without disrupting traffic with lines installed on the far west side. Mike stated that his other question was with financial assistance. Currently, and with the projections that NDOT has given, is that this will be a 20 to 25 million dollar project through federal funding. Mike further stated that the procurement procedure they have decided to use is a design build, where they have essentially listed five firms who will be preparing proposals and part of that is a final design.

Mike stated that steps going forward would be to contact the prequalified construction firms and request the interest that this needs to be included in their proposal. Mike further stated that the State has stated that they have left it to the respondents to approach the utilities and see what they need. Mike stated that we should be pro-active and approach these firms and let them know we need water lines included. Proposals are due in January and the award will likely be in March.

Mike, in hoping to get this paid for with federal funds, stated he was instructed to prepare a discussion of the costs of the water service, installation of this water line, submit it to the director of NDOT, mentioning that the District has not budgeted for this CIP and request that it be included in the project assuming there is a utility allotment and allow them to propose something back. It may be negotiated, and maybe at least over time and not a one-time payment if the District does have to pay for it or a portion of the costs. There was further discussion on type, size, quantity of pipe, funding, costs, design, etc.

Direction was given to Ken Rock and Mike Chandler to move forward with approaching these firms to be included in the project and possible assistance with funding, with endorsement from the board, and bring back to the board for approval for any action.

7. Discussion – A discussion of potential grant supported projects in lieu of the under-river horizontal collector wells

Ken began by stating that the Army Corp of Engineers (ACOE) was going to support/partially fund the under-river horizontal collector wells, when in fact, he should have stated the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). Ken stated that he has been receiving calls from the BOR wondering what the District was going to do and how much money was required and that we were able to substitute other similar projects for this project since we were going to discontinue this CIP. Ken further stated that they liked the idea of being involved with a “cutting edge” project. Ken thought that they might be interested in a groundwater recharge with recycled water project where we would improve the groundwater and draw it out and use it as a reservoir for non-potable water uses, and then potentially this might be interpreted as a “potable water value project”. Even though it is not used as potable water, you are saving potable water.

Ken stated that unless anyone else had some other ideas, this was all he could think of that might be a good substitute for the other project cancelled. Ken further stated that we do have a groundwater recharge project being drawn up by consultants with non-specifics, but not for recycled water, but with river water. Karl stated that he didn’t believe there would be any recycled water available for this project. Karl suggested something where we use our river water to extend our potable water with piping, pumping stations, etc.

Mike Chandler stated that on Monday there was a power outage and plant #27 was down, but well #27 kept trying to kick on. Mike further stated that the wells are not currently equipped to relay information; they work, but with technology, they could be better and more secure and there was further discussion of upgrading the District’s SCADA system for a better and more protected system. Mike further stated that this data could help with approaching the State Engineer to approve more groundwater applications.

Ken stated that this sounded good, but his understanding was the BOR was looking for something novel, groundbreaking and sexy. Ken stated that he would speak with lobbyists and consultants for their ideas also.

8. General Manager’s Report

Ken had included a written report and stated that he has been attending lots of meetings. Karl asked about #11 and was informed that the defective pump on well 30 was being looked at by the insurance adjuster and progress was now taking place for possible coverage. A meeting will be coordinated between all the golf courses, City of Mesquite and the VVWD, hopefully sometime in November.

9. Public Comment

There was no public comment at this time.

10. Adjournment

President John Paul adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m.

NOTE): The minutes of this meeting have been tape-recorded and will remain on file in the District office for a one-year period for public examination.

•  Board Meeting Minutes: 2010-10-19 (.pdf 26.K)